Big Money

Now that the election is over, the tallies are in, and the numbers are shocking — and no, I'm not talking about the votes. I'm talking about the record-breaking amounts of anonymous money poured into campaign coffers by shadowy front groups like American Action Network and American Future Fund. American Action Network spent over $16 million on electioneering in 2010 but did not disclose where a single penny came from. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent over $31 million, but they also did not disclose their donors.

By Jeff Barker and Lorraine Mirabella, The Baltimore Sun | August 21, 2014

Under Armour is working to land NBA superstar Kevin Durant as a pitch man — a sponsorship deal that could be one of the largest ever signed and give the Baltimore company a major inroad into the lucrative basketball marketplace. Signing the popular Oklahoma City Thunder forward, who grew up playing basketball in Washington and Maryland and still has family in the region, would be a coup for Under Armour as it tries to build its shoe business and boost its stature internationally.

Americans across party lines all have at least one thing to celebrate after this election: candidates supported by small donors won a David-and-Goliath battle in a campaign flooded with special interest money. But it would be a mistake to think that this victory means special interest or secret money will not continue to influence our politics. Campaign contributions are not a one-time gift but rather an investment, with the expected return being high-level access to our politicians.

Your editorial clearly defines the problem we face in Baltimore County government - the abundance of special interest money in the hands of elected officials with less than altruistic intentions ( "Kamenetz the kingmaker," May 23). Big money is a prime reason for my campaign against the current administration which often operates in opposition to my ethical beliefs. Indeed, to simply sit back and watch the Kamenetz administration act in a less than honorable manner to individuals, community groups and county employees was a determining factor in my decision to enter the race for Baltimore County Executive.

"You follow me, kid?" An old friend of mine, educated at Hotchkiss and Haverford, used to ask that all the time, sometimes after every two sentences, like when he showed me how to make a martini or how to work the clutch in a '74 Fiat or when he tried to explain what arbitrage was. He had a head for cocktails, cars and finance, and he talked real fast, with a cigarette on his lip. He'd start explaining something complex, like bond trading, and stop...

If lawmakers are serious about reforming Maryland's tax code in the near future, they ought to reform the state's campaign finance laws first. The reason is simple: Tax laws are filled with loopholes and inequities because big political donors wield enormous influence. That's just as true in Annapolis as it is in Washington. And it will always be true - unless legislators embrace the public financing of campaigns. Want the General Assembly to pass your bill? Any lobbyist worth his Guccis will tell you that you first have to donate money to the appropriate pols.

Annapolis -- A number of legislators have suggested recently that campaign finance reform legislation must pass this year in Maryland to cope with a "perception" that big money is the only voice the General Assembly hears.At hearings in both the Senate and House of Delegates, witnesses who favor the bill have said they know of no real problem -- only the perception of a relationship in which votes depend on campaign contributions.If perception could be outlawed, this argument suggests, there would be no problem.

With total fund raising for the 2000 election expected to top $3 billion, the Senate began consideration yesterday of a new proposal to overhaul the nation's campaign finance system. The House of Representatives recently approved a measure designed to curb the influence of big money in politics. And political reform is becoming a hot issue in the presidential campaign trail.Throughout the decade of the '90s, campaign finance has been fought over in Washington almost every year. But the result has been a legislative stalemate and widespread confusion over the terms of the debate.

By Robert Hilson Jr. and Robert Hilson Jr.,Evening Sun Staff | May 10, 1991

The squeegee kid says he was was washing car windshields the other day when a man approached and asked if he wanted to make some "big money."The boy, 12, who lives in a West Baltimore public-housing development, had seen the man before in the courtyard of the project and knew what the offer involved -- joining a drug organization."

When you're talking about fishing tournaments with big prize money, you're talking about the ones with the big bills. Marlin bills, that is. The White Marlin Open, Ocean City's premier competition, is in its 28th year, bringing in the big crowds, big boats and big payoffs. This edition roars to life Aug. 6 for five days of scale-bending, flashbulb-popping fun. When last we saw Jim Motsko, the founder and president of the WMO, he was handing out $1.45 million in prize money, including one prize of $592,440.

Fair warning: this book will make you angry. "The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap," by Matt Taibbi, is a volume of stories. Like the Vietnamese refugee and rape victim in San Diego who applied for public assistance, only to be visited by a "welfare inspector" who barged into her home and began yelling that he would take her children away if he found she was lying about being destitute and not having a man. All this as he's rummaging through her belongings.

The one thing billionaires and their special interest groups are counting on is voter apathy ( "A win for the billionaires," April 4). If they can keep the electorate focused on their personal agendas and cynical about politics, they can buy elections and get legislation passed that serves their interests to the detriment of the rest of the country. But the one thing that scares them is an educated electorate that turns out to vote. Voter turnout will always trump big money. I completely agree on the need for a constitutional convention that would affirm the right of every citizen to vote, limit the influence of big money and refuse to recognize corporations as people.

I was pleased to read The Sun's editorial against the Supreme Court's wrongheaded decision in McCutcheon v. FEC ( "A win for the billionaires," April 6). I'm to hoping that this decision serves as a spark for change. The court's decision to eliminate federal limits on the total amount of money that mega-donors can contribute during an election cycle empowers a tiny group of fewer than 3,000 elite donors to spend an additional billion dollars in our elections through 2020. This isn't the way it should be. In our democracy, the size of your wallet shouldn't determine the strength of your voice in our political system.

Forty years ago, Congress enacted sweeping limits on political campaign spending in the wake of a shocking disclosure that one man - Chicago insurance executive W. Clement Stone - had given more than $3 million for the 1972 reelection of President Richard M. Nixon. The amount seemed outlandish then, in a campaign in which Nixon waltzed to victory over his Democratic opponent, Sen. George McGovern, winning 49 states and losing only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. It was an easily predictable drubbing.

In the world of John G. Roberts Jr., it appears the only true case of government corruption is the "American Hustle" style of handing over a pile of money to a congressman in some smoke-filled backroom deal. Yet here in the real world, we've come to understand that corruption is a subtler evil where money buys access and preference, resulting in gifts not necessarily tied up with a bow under a tree, but just as real and valuable. Forty years ago, Americans were outraged by this potential assault on democracy, and so were enough members of Congress to support bipartisan limits on campaign donations.

Tuesday marks the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC ruling, when the court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. Our democracy is built on the basic premise that people - regardless of gender, creed, geography, states or religion - are politically equal. One person, one vote. The decision four years ago opened the floodgates for big money in our elections, enabling a small number of mega-donors to drown out the voices of average Americans.

SENATE REPUBLICANS were on the verge of making themselves rather than Clinton-Gore fund-raising the issue before coming to their senses and agreeing to a wide-scale probe of campaign financing improprieties. Both parties are now vulnerable to embarrassment and worse, which is as it should be.The GOP turnabout may put some zip behind a reform effort that seemed all but dead despite daily headlines about White House sleepovers, foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee and, the latest outrage: unconscionable bilking by the DNC of a land-starved Indian tribe that paid $107,000 for a Clinton coffee-klatch.

Tuesday marks the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC ruling, when the court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. Our democracy is built on the basic premise that people - regardless of gender, creed, geography, states or religion - are politically equal. One person, one vote. The decision four years ago opened the floodgates for big money in our elections, enabling a small number of mega-donors to drown out the voices of average Americans.

Dan Rodricks ' column ("Following the big money to Harbor Point," Aug. 18) on the development at Harbor Point contributes very little to the ongoing debate about the best ways of developing Baltimore. Indeed, Mr. Rodricks lapses into needless and unhelpful insults when he makes sophomoric reference to developer Michael Beatty's "hairstyle" and to anyone who might wear "French cuffs. " There are plenty of rational and important questions to ask about Harbor Point and about how the city and state make deals.

It was a familiar scene on WWE Raw for longtime wrestling fans. In the ring stood the authority figures -- in this case Triple H, Vince McMahon and Stephanie McMahon -- talking about what's right for WWE, their thoughts on the look of a proper champion and why their actions were all for the benefit of the fans. Daniel Bryan is the victim of their crimes. According to the "decision makers," he doesn't look like a champion. He's not an A, but a solid B+, they say. Earlier in the show, he was escorted away by security.